“A Century of Service to Miami-Dade County”

Programs and Services That Help You GROW Your Practice, GAIN Experience & GIVE Back

BULLETIN

APRIL 2018

IN THIS ISSUE:Corporate Counsel & CEO DinnerPage 2

Dade County Bar Association Young Lawyers Section’s 52nd Annual Judicial ReceptionPage 3

Judicial LuminariesPage 4

The Florida Public Records Act: A Primer for Private Entities

Practical Guidance for Advising Corporate Boards in the #MeToo EraPage 5

Probate Court Internship

The Constitutional CornerPage 6

Superstars in TrialPage 7

TH

E D

AD

E C

OU

NT

Y B

AR

ASS

OC

IAT

ION

Famed British author Charles Dickens once wrote, “charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.” Charles Dickens, The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit, chapter 27. Despite the culmination of growing concentrations of wealth, mounting cries for aid across the globe, and increasing aggregate levels of corporate philanthropy, there has been surprisingly little case law and media attention linking the calculus underlying corporate philanthropy with shareholder maximization. Corporate philanthropy has enjoyed renewed interest from both jurists and scholars in recent years. Notwithstanding the considerable academic concentration, there exists a void in determining the best uses of corporate assets for philanthropic efforts under a model that best advances corporate goals.

In an era when corporations have come to be seen as monsters and major blockbusters relish in their depictions of corporate greed, corporate charitable donations and other philanthropic endeavors provide opportunities for companies to define their image and grow goodwill. Recent studies have shown that over the last quarter century, there has been a substantial increase in charitable donations and activity of nearly 1200% overall and about 400% in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1975. Doug Guterhie, Richard Arum, Josipa Roksa, Sarah Damaske, Giving to Local Schools: Corporate Philanthropy, Tax Incentives, and the Ecology of Need, 37 Soc. Sci. ReSeaRch 856 (2007). Over the past few decades, corporate philanthropy has evolved from once drawing the scorn of courts to conduct that is generally accepted as commonplace in modern corporate America.

There has been significant ebb and flow in court opinions over the past two centuries concerning the court’s view of firms, the fiduciary duty of the corporate managers to shareholders, and a corporation’s ability to engage in corporate philanthropy. Courts have long since held that a corporation is a legal

entity created pursuant to the laws of a state to create a separate being with its own privileges and liabilities apart from its individual members. A corporation is an artificial person, owned by individual shareholders, that has its own distinct corporate name and substitutes itself for shareholders when engaging in business transactions. The skeleton of law has swayed through the crosswinds of time as society and courts have shifted their views of the role of corporations in modern society. See, e.g., Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1837); Steinway v. Steinway & Sons, 17 Misc. 43, 44 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896); Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919); A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953).

The courts have played witness to a long and heated debate on the legality of corporate philanthropy. In the 1800’s, several American courts rendered the use of corporate assets for any purposes unrelated to the chartered aims of the corporation and even authorized shareholders to bring suit against companies for ultra vires actions. During the 19th century, U.S. courts, perhaps swayed by opinions from across the Atlantic, viewed the corporation as the exclusive, private property of shareholders.

By the early twentieth century, there was no denying the increasing concentration of wealth in corporate hands and soon corporate executives began to utilize social spending to persuade employees and the public that increasing concentrations of corporate wealth and power would not diminish public interest. The resiliency of this enlightenment would be tested in 1919, when the Supreme Court of Michigan considered Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., one of the most important corporate law cases in U.S. history. 204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919). The case pitted American automobile giants—Henry Ford and John and Horace Dodge—against each other in a dispute over the business judgment rule and duty owed to

Advancing Corporate Philanthropy

Jordan Dresnick101st President of

the Dade County Bar

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

“Over the past few decades,

corporate philanthropy

has evolved from once drawing the scorn of

courts to conduct that is generally

accepted as commonplace in

modern corporate America.”

continued on page 3

2 DCBA BULLETIN | APRIL 2018

DADE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATIONBoard of Directors 2017-2018

OFFICERSJORDAN A. DRESNICK, President*

STEPHANIE L. CARMAN, President-Elect*GILBERT K. SQUIRES, Vice President*

JANE MUIR, Secretary* EFFIE D. SILVA, Treasurer*

ALICE RAMIREZ, Interim Executive DirectorJOHNNIE M. RIDGELY, Executive Director

(1965-2006)

GROUP ONEFRANCESCA CORALLO

ANTONIO ROMANOLATOYA BROWNNICOLE M. REID

JULIAN A. JACKSON-FANNINMELISSA V. JORDON

GROUP TWOGERI SATIN

YOLANDA P. STRADERERIC HOCKMAN

STELLA CHUNATALIE RICO

STUART J. WEISSMAN

GROUP THREEADILIA QUINTANA-HEDGES

DOLLY HERNANDEZSABRINA PUGLISI

PATRICK MONTOYAZACHARY N. JAMES

MIRANDA LUNDEEN SOTO

GROUP FOURLAURA K. WENDELLTHOMAS SANTOROBRADLEY TRUSHIN

JACQUELINE ARANGOJEFF P. CYNAMON

JULIE HARRIS NELSON

GROUP FIVEFLORA SEFF

RICHARD LESLIEBRIAN SPECTORRICHARD BARONSCOTT L. BAENA

STANFORD BLAKE

STEVEN P. BEFERA, ABA Delegate 2016-2017

DADE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATIONYOUNG LAYWERS SECTION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017-2018

OFFICERS Eric Bluestein, President

Evian L. White-De Leon, President-ElectIsabella Poschl, SecretaryKristen Corpion, Treasurer

2016-2018 DIRECTORSDavid De La Flor

Lauren DoyleZachariah R.F. Evangelista

Stephanie GrosmanMichael Levine

Scott MerlJames M. Slater

2017-2019 DIRECTORS Michael T. Davis

Rachael Mitchell FagensonAmber KornreichDaniel RowinskyRichard D. Shane

Johan SolimanJoseph Sternberg

BULLETIN COMMITTEE

Katherine Mastrucci, Co-ChairMihai Vrasmasu, Co-Chair123 NW First Avenue #214

Miami, Florida 33128305-371-2220

EX – OFFICIOSookie Williams

Corporate Counsel & CEO Dinner The Dade County Bar Association hosted the Corporate Counsel & CEO Gala at the Hyatt in Downtown Miami on February 7, 2018. This great evening celebrated honorees: Luis de la Aguilera- U.S. Century Bank; Norman Braman- Braman Motorcars; Arnold Donald- Carnival; Dr. Barth Green- Global Health and Community Service at University of Miami; The Soffer Family; Lisa Lutoff-Perlo- Celebrity Cruises and Guy Vanderhaegen- Origis Energy. The evening also included remarks by DCBA President Jordan A. Dresnick, Erica Weissfeld, Rebecca Bratter, John Crabtree, James A. Gale, Joe Mantilla and Richard Montes de Oca.

Ed Shohat, Debi Wechsler, Ed Vidal and Marco D. Britt

Alex Sarafoglu and Corey Douglas

Debi Wechsler and Jeff Wechsler

Melissa Rogue and Christopher Lee

Kelly Spear and Ann St. Peter-Griffith

Alan Kramer and Janis Cheezem Claudia Walsh and Martha De Zayas

Eduardo Vidal, Zel Saccani, Marco D. Britt and Dr. April Patterson Maria Ruiz and Judge Monica Gordo

Christopher Andrew Tavera, Daniella Londono and Alessandra Dominguez

Barbara Reisberg and Michael Weiss Alex Sarafoglu, Daniela Puggina and Ricardo Puggina

Donell A. Hicks and Tiya Rolle Burt Lopez, Martha Guerra, Nelson Hidalgo, Diana Perez, Luis de la Aguilera, Aida Levitan and Jalal “Jay” Shehadeh

www.dadecountybar.org 3

Dade County Bar Association Young Lawyers Section’s 52nd Annual Judicial ReceptionBY ERIC BLUESTEIN

The Dade County Bar Association Young Lawyers Section will proudly host its 52nd Annual Judicial Reception to honor our judiciary

on Thursday, April 19, 2018. The

Judicial Reception will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Miami. We hope you will all join us in celebrating, and recognizing, the hard-working members of our judiciary.

This is an opportunity for all lawyers to meet and socialize with many of the judges in this circuit. As in past years, hors d’oeuvres will be served and there will be an open bar.

Tickets are $50.00 in advance and $60.00 at the door. Tickets for members of the judiciary are complimentary.

There are sponsorship opportunities available. If you have not yet received a letter or phone call from a member of the Young Lawyers Section regarding the opportunity to sponsor the Judicial Reception, please call me at (305) 371-2692, or e-mail me at Eric@EricBluestein.Com.

Thank you in advance for supporting our judges and the Young Lawyers Section. We look forward to seeing you the evening of April 19, 2018.

Eric Bluestein represents plaintiffs in personal injury, wrongful death and medical malpractice matters, and handles commercial and business litigation at Law Offices of Eric Bluestein, P.A. He is also Of Counsel to Dolan, Dobrinsky & Rosenblum, LLP. Mr. Bluestein can be reached at eric@ericbluestein.com.

shareholders. The case took on the feel of a Shakespearian play, with Henry Ford playing the role of King Lear, as a monarch who confused his obligation to carry out the official duties as corporate executive and instead opted to forsake profits for the benefit of mankind.

By mid 1916, the Ford Motor Company had garnered more than $60,000,000 of capital surplus. Id. at 492. The price of the original Ford Model T had decreased steadily over the years, declining from an original price of over $900 to $440 in 1916. Id. at 504. At the same time as the company was lowering the price of the automobiles, the cost of the sales of parts, repairs, and labor had increased. Id. at 503. The lawsuit began when Henry Ford, the president and largest shareholder of the company, proposed ceasing the payment of special dividends. See id. at 502-04. Prior to the

filing of the suit, Ford had paid both special and regular dividends. Id. at 459. In place of providing shareholders with the dividends, Ford sought to invest in new investments to grow the plant and increase the Ford workforce. See 204 Mich. at 502-04. In fact, Ford characterized his ambition as “to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.” Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. at 505.

Led most prominently by the Dodge Brothers, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin Ford from expanding its operations and to require the company to provide a special dividend of 75% of the surplus. Id. at 459. The lower court agreed with the Dodge Brothers and ordered the payment of a special dividend as well as enjoined

the use of the surplus for the expansion of business operations. Id.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed the lower court and rebuked the argument that Ford’s policy was ultra vires. Id. at 497-98. Comparing the case to Hawes v. Oakland (17 Misc. 43 (U.S. 1896)), Steinway (17 Misc. 43 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896)), and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (136 A.D. 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)), the court determined that the case turns flatly on whether the directors had acted for the best interests of the corporation. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. at 506. Finding that “[a] business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders,” the court was critical of Ford’s efforts to utilize shareholder assets for philanthropic purposes. Id. at 507. In the face of this criticism, the court ultimately opined, “[w]e are not, however, persuaded that we should interfere with

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE continued from coverthe proposed expansion of the business of the Ford Motor Company….The judges are not business experts.” Id. at 507-8 (emphasis supplied). While the Michigan Supreme Court was unwilling to insert itself as an appointed emperor of Ford’s Board of Directors and enjoin the growing of Ford’s structure, the court did affirm the lower court’s order that Ford provide a sizeable dividend to shareholders. However, proponents of corporate philanthropy are hard pressed to overcome the choice of the court’s words, “a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.” Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. at 507.

Many commentators have heralded Ford Motor Co. as the lighthouse illuminating the path to safe harbor with the clear pronunciation of the business judgment rule.

CORPORATE COUNCEL & CEO DINNER continued from page 2

Stephanie Russo, Marcus Mahfood, George Mahfood and Melissa Goldman

Kyle Jackson Sr., Steven Gonzalez and Cameron Murphy Richard Cohen, Linda Worton Jackson and Lindsey Lovell

Martha Guerra and Janessa Cabo Nancy Stein and Tamara Van Hee

John Crabtree and Ivy Diel Dr. Barth Green and Nancy Green

Alex Goodstone, Deborah Goodstone, Judge Joseph Farina and Christopher Lee

4 DCBA BULLETIN | APRIL 2018

Judicial Luminaries Litigation View from the Bench CLE Dinner and Reception was held at the Mayfair Hotel on February 22, 2018. The distinguished members of the bench from both circuit and appellate courts plus a leading trial lawyer helped you learn how to gain a winning edge in the courtroom. Moderated by Edward R. Blumberg and Featuring: Honorable Leslie B. Rothenberg, Honorable Norma S. Lindsey Honorable Beatrice Butchko, Honorable Peter R. Lopez, Honorable Monica Gordo and Honorable Bronwyn Miller.

David Grossman and H. Steven Voge

Scott Mendlestein, Judge Monica Gordo, Judge Peter Lopez and Scott Solomon

Jake Goldberg, Bill Sussman, David Luck and Melissa Softness

Ariella Ederi, Judge Norma Lindsey and DCBA Past President Steve Davis

Judge Tanya Brinkley, DCBA President Jordan Dresnick and Michelle Suskauer

Ariella Ederi, Judge Norma Lindsey, Vivianne Del Rio and Trevor Gillum

Brian Chaiken, Greg Grossman and John Annesser Adrian Felix, David Luck and Melissa Softness Judge Peter Lopez, Diana Diaz, Arlenys Perdomo, Judge Leslie Rothenberg, Shayna Hudson and John Ruiz

Alex Castro, Megan Gold and DCBA Vice President Gilbert Squires

Judge Fleur Lobree, Daryl Greenberg and Judge Bronwyn Miller DCBA President Jordan Dresnick, Nicole Reid and Judge Peter Lopez

Michelle Suskauer and DCBA Past President Jack Hickey

Bill Sussman and Ben Reid

Bruce Weil, Judge Leslie Rothenberg, Judge Beatrice Butchko, DCBA Past-President Steve Davis and Michelle Suskauer

www.dadecountybar.org 5

The Florida Public Records Act: A Primer for Private Entities

Practical Guidance for Advising Corporate Boards in the #MeToo Era

BY OLIVIA KELMAN

BY ANGELICA BOUTWELL

The State of Florida has a long history of open government in the sunshine, providing members of the public and the press a right of access to

information contained in records of state and local governments and agencies. This right, which emanates from the Florida Constitution and the Florida Public Records Act, Ch. 119, F.S., may be understood as serving a corollary purpose to the First Amendment.

While designed to ensure the transparency of government operations, the Public Records Act can have significant implications for private entities too. Private entities interact and transact business with government agencies in myriad ways—such as entering into contracts to provide goods or services, receiving funds from government agencies, entering contracts to use public property, submitting information in connection with license applications, and in supervisory exchanges or litigation with government agencies, to name a

The last several months have shown an uptick in media attention devoted to claims of sexual harassment and misconduct in general, and in the workplace in

particular. Reports of multi-million dollar settlements of many such claims have also loomed large as cautionary tales about failures of not only personal, but also of corporate ethics. Large, under-the-radar settlement payments aimed at silencing those who accuse corporate officers of sexual misconduct almost inevitably become public, often with high public relations costs.

When such internal and public scandals hit, government regulators, corporate shareholders, and the general public are often left asking, “Where was the company’s board of directors, and what did they know, and when?” Boards of directors, in turn, often claim to have been in the dark, or not to have had an accurate sense of the scope or severity of a problem. In today’s ethical and legal climate, corporate boards can no longer expect a defense of ignorance to hold any credibility. Although there is a thin line between board oversight and over-involvement, all corporate boards should be making great efforts to create,

few. In the course of such transactions, private entities may be brought within the ambit of the Public Records Act. A basic understanding of the Public Records Act’s scope and exemptions provides essential foundational knowledge for decision-makers at private entities doing business in Florida.

Scope of the Public Records Act The definition of “public records” includes documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, and other materials—regardless of finality of form, meaning that the Public Records Act applies to drafts. Importantly, the Public Records Act applies to all materials made or received by a public agency in the course of conducting public business.

The mere act of contracting with a public agency or receiving public funds does not bring a private entity within the scope of the Public Records Act. Courts considering the question of when a private entity becomes subject to the Public Records Act have generally followed one of two approaches. Under the “delegation test,” records generated by the private entity in the performance of a statutorily-authorized function become public. Under the “totality-of-factors”

enforce, and preserve ethically and legally compliant corporate cultures. While the aim of such efforts should be to prevent disruptive and damaging corporate scandals like those that dominate today’s headlines, such efforts can also mitigate the fallout from scandals if and when they do arise.

This article is offered with the intention of providing lawyers, who are often tasked with counseling corporate clients in navigating thorny issues like these, with a brief overview of potential options and best practices to offer their clients. The following are some relatively simple measures all corporate boards can and should be taking (if they are not already doing so):

• Demand and hold senior management accountable. While doing so may appear to undermine the board’s role of setting ethical and compliance standards for the company from the top down, the board can and should create programs and policies that make concealing misconduct more difficult, and/or that make reporting misconduct more simple.

• Increase director diversity. Recent studies emphasize that the composition and personal and professional backgrounds of individual members of corporate boards directly and indirectly impact

test, courts focus on a variety of factors including public funding, whether activity is conducted on public property, whether contracted services are integral to a public agency’s decision-making process, whether the public agency would otherwise be required to perform the services, the public agency’s regulation of the private entity, and for whose benefit the private entity is functioning, among others. Whether a private entity is within the scope of the Public Records Act is an intensely factual and individualized question.

Exemptions to the Public Records Act The Public Records Act exempts certain categories of public records from public disclosure, which authorize public agencies to withhold requested records on the basis of the asserted exemptions. If a party requesting public records seeks to challenge a public agency’s assertion of an exemption, the Public Records Act permits the filing of a lawsuit to achieve court resolution of whether an exemption was properly claimed. One category of exemption is particularly relevant to private entities providing documents to public agencies: trade secrets identified as confidential and submitted to an agency. A “trade secret” is defined by Florida law, and must be a (1) secret, (2) of value, (3) for use in or by the business, and (4) of advantage to the business, or providing

the quality of the boards’ decisions, and the results of board oversight efforts. One recent study, conducted by the Credit Suisse Research Institute, which analyzed over 2,000 companies around the world from 2005 to 2011, reported that those companies with one or more female board members yielded better average returns on equity, and showed better average growth as compared to peer companies with less diverse boards. The evidence reviewed as part of this Credit Suisse Research Institute study also suggested that more balance in terms of gender diversity, in particular, resulted in less corporate volatility and more balanced performance through each business cycle.

• Tracking and raising board awareness of emerging risks. Taking this step can involve creating sub-committees that are responsible for preparing, conducting, and reporting on corporate culture reviews to the full board. Boards can also form sub-committees tasked with reviewing internal issues relating to workforce morale and/or allegations of misconduct as they come up. By proactively and consistently taking the pulse of the larger company, board members can help officers and employees avoid surprise scandals and ensuing disruptions.

• Requiring board knowledge and

an opportunity to obtain advantage over those who do not know or use it. Importantly, private entities submitting trade secret information to a public agency must mark the information as “confidential” at the time of submission in order to later have a valid claim that the records are exempt from disclosure.

Best Practices • Private entities that transact (or

contemplate transacting) business with public agencies should maintain a working knowledge of the Public Records Act.

• Each page of any records provided by private entities to public agencies that contain trade secret or proprietary confidential business information should be marked confidential.

• Private entities litigating against public agencies must internalize the public nature of agreements to settle such matters.

Olivia Kelman is an attorney at the Miami office of global law firm K&L Gates, LLP. She focuses her practice on financial institutions and services litigation, compliance, and enforcement matters, with a concentration on fair and responsible lending and banking. Olivia also regularly counsels clients on the application and strictures of the Florida Public Records Act and Government in the Sunshine Law.

approval before settling claims or lawsuits involving allegations of officer or director misconduct. Although settlement of routine corporate litigation largely falls within the purview of management, boards should be apprised of and involved in settling claims involving allegations made against officers, directors, and senior executives. Not only does board involvement equate with increased board awareness, it also makes it much less likely that corporate resources can be used to minimize or cover up misconduct that could warrant additional board action.

The above suggestions, while broadly useful, will never be enough on their own. Sometimes, the events that cause the greatest disruption and damage to companies are beyond legal counsel or directors’ ability to predict and prevent. However, if boards of directors take the wheel, they can help ensure that the moral compass of an organization stays steady, thus further ensuring the enterprise will be ready and equipped to weather storms and scandals alike.

Angelica Boutwell is a litigation lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP’s Miami office. Angelica focuses her practice on commercial litigation, business dispute resolution, and corporate governance and related disputes. She received her JD from the University of Miami School of Law, with honors. Angelica can be reached at aboutwell@foley.com.

Ariella Ederi, Judge Norma Lindsey, Vivianne Del Rio and Trevor Gillum

6 DCBA BULLETIN | APRIL 2018

Probate Court Internship Dade Legal Aid’s Guardianship Department provides free civil legal assistance to vulnerable low-income individuals, families, children and the elderly who are disabled and in need of a guardianship in Miami-Dade County. To date, Dade Legal Aid’s Guardianship Department has handled over 800 guardianship cases. Dade Legal Aid thanks the Dade County Bar Association Probate & Guardianship Committee for always supporting us and collaborating with us on hundreds of cases. At this year’s Holiday Party, the DCBA Committee announced that they are fundraising for a new Probate Court Legal Aid Intern to assist the Court and Dade Legal Aid’s Guardianship Department, which impacts a wide spectrum of people living at and below the poverty level. “This internship position is necessary to support the advocacy of Dade Legal Aid, the county’s oldest provider of civil legal aid to the indigent and the Probate Division,” said Karen Ladis, Executive Director. “We are beyond grateful to the Committee and to the generous individuals, firms and foundations that have donated to this new Fellowship spearheaded by Richard Milstein, Chair.”

To donate to this project, please send your check to: Dade Legal Aid Guardianship Department, 123 N.W. First Ave., Miami, FL 33128, First Floor

For more information please contact kladis@dadelegalaid.org.

BY HONORABLE MILTON HIRSCH On April 16, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King released, in response to criticisms jointly authored by eight fellow clergymen, his “letter from Birmingham jail.” It is too long to reproduce in its entirety (Dr. King himself acknowledged that, “Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long

prayers?”), but it more than repays reading. My excerpts of choice follow:

“I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this ‘hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.”

“But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’ Was not Amos an extremist for justice: ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.’ Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: ‘I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.’ Was not Martin Luther an extremist: ‘Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.’ And John Bunyan: ‘I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.’ And Abraham Lincoln: ‘This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.’ And Thomas Jefferson: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...’ So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

The Honorable Milton Hirsch has been a judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida since January of 2011. He is also an adjunct professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law and at St. Thomas Law School. In 2016, he became the recipient of the Dade County Bar Association’s “Criminal Justice Award” for his outstanding contribution to Miami-Dade County’s criminal justice system. The above passage is an excerpt from Judge Hirsch’s Constitutional Calendar. If you would like to be added to the Calendar’s distribution list, please contact Judge Hirsch at milton.hirsch@gmail.com with your name and e-mail address.

The Constitutional Corner

Ave Maria School of Law was founded in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1999, and in 2009 relocated to Naples, Florida. It is licensed by the Florida Commission for Independent Education,

License Number 4007, and is fully accredited by the American Bar Association.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Richards, Coordinator of Events, (239) 687-5341 or arichards@avemarialaw.edu

ESTATEPLANNINGCONFERENCE

5TH ANNUAL

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER NOW:

http://avemarialaw-estate- planning.avemarialaw.edu/

LEADING NATIONAL SPEAKERS INCLUDING:Paul Lee | Stacy Eastland | Mark Parthemer

April 27, 2018 The Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort, Naples

$325CLE CreditsGeneral 9.0 Ethics 1.0

Certification CreditsElder Law 9.0 Real Estate 1.0

Tax Law 3.0 Wills, Trusts and

Estates 9.0CTFA Credits

9.0

www.dadecountybar.org 7

Natalie Rico, Nicole Reid, Lee Stapelton, Michael T. Moore, DCBA Past President Steve Davis and Janpaul Portal

Janpaul Portal and Haybel Portal Diana Diaz, Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Douglas J. McCarron, Judge Lisa Walsh and DCBA Treasurer Effie Silva

Jennifer Miller, Todd Omar Malone, Sherril M. Colombo, Melissa Visconti and Mark Heise

Judge Samantha Ruiz-Cohen and Stuart Grossman

Diana Diaz, J. Alfredo Armas, DCBA Past President Jack Hickey, Jacqueline Arango, Alan Dimond and Leslie Lott

DCBA President Jordan Dresnick and Judge Samantha Ruiz-Cohen

Chan Abney and Judge Michael Robinson

Judge Jose Rodriguez, Judge Ronald Dresnick and Judd Rosen

Sherril Colombo and Stefanie Mederos

Adam Jameson Bair, Tamara Pallas and Ryan Jurney

Eddie Holiday, Jenisse Grace and Robert Travis

DCBA Treasurer Effie Silva, Judge Lisa Walsh, Douglas J. McCarron and Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens

Eric Sodhi, Carlos Canino and Dallas Robinson

Omar Malone, Fred Cunningham and Todd Michaels

Michael Carmona, Sebastian Ohanian and Juan Sanchez

Diana Diaz, Judge Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge Dennis Murphy, Judge Reemberto Diaz, Judge Michael A. Robinson, Judge Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge Peter Lopez and David Coulson

Lee Stapleton, Michael T. Moore, Natalie Rico, DCBA Past-President Steven Davis, Nicole M. Reid and Janpaul Portal

Superstars in Trial On March 2nd, 2018, Dade County Bar Association hosted at the Miracle Theatre in Coral Gables the “SuperStars in Trial: Miami vs. Broward & Palm Beach.” This was the best mock trial of the year with 56 of South Florida’s top attorneys trying a case to a real jury. Panelists included: Jennifer G. Altman; Jacqueline M. Arango; Judge Barbara Areces; J. Alfredo Armas; Judge Martin J. Bidwill; Edward R. Blumberg; Jay Cohen; Judge Samantha Ruiz Cohen; Judge Yvonne Colodny; Sherril M. Colombo; Angel A. Cortinas; David A. Coulson; Fred A. Cunningham; Steven W. Davis; Judge Remberto Diaz; Alan T. Dimond; Judge Ronald C. Dresnick (Ret.); Michael B. Feiler; James L. Ferraro; Willie E. Gary; Stuart Z. Grossman; Judge Michael A. Hanzman; Mark J. Heise; John “Jack” H. Hickey; Bacardi L. Jackson; Markenzy Lapointe;

Javier A. Lopez; Judge Peter R. Lopez; Jorge D. Lorenzo; Leslie J. Lott; Omar Malone; Diana Santa Maria; Douglas J. McCarron; Todd J. Michaels; Judge Bronwyn C. Miller; Jennifer Miller; Michael T. Moore; Judge Dennis J. Murphy; Irene Oria; Janpaul Portal; Frank C. Quesada; Nicole M. Reid; Natalie M. Rico; Judge Michael A. Robinson; Judge Jose M. Rodriguez; Brett M. Rosen; Judd G. Rosen; John H. Ruiz; Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens; Christian D. Searcy; Effie D. Silva; Lee E. Stapleton; Melissa D. Visconti; Judge Lisa S. Walsh; Judge Marina Garcia Wood and Robert Zarco. The program also included discussion from six panels of judges and attorneys on strategies involving depositions, direct and cross examinations, jury selection, opening and closing arguments, voir-dire, and feedback from jurors.

8 DCBA BULLETIN | APRIL 2018

For more information visit www.dadecountybar.org

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

Dade County Bar Association 123 N.W. First Avenue Miami, Florida 33128DCBA OPPORTUNITIES

4500 MembersOpportunities to Get Involved

33 Committees Opportunities to Serve the Profession

100 CLE ProgramsOpportunities to Increase Your Knowledge

More Than 250 Events a YearOpportunities to Increase Your Referral Network

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

MIAMI, FL

PERMIT NO. 1110

APRIL 63RD DCA SPRING SEMINARLOCATION: FIU COLLEGE OF LAWTIME: 3:00 PMMEMBER ADMISSION: $25NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $35

APRIL 7LEGAL AID’S BATTLE OF THE BANDSLOCATION: SIDEBARTIME: 7:00 PM

APRIL 10SOLO SMALL FIRM SEMINARLOCATION: HAMPTON INNTIME: 12:00 NOONMEMBER ADMISSION: $75NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $95

APRIL 12PROBATE & GUARDIANSHIP SEMINARTIME: 12:00 NOON LOCATION: LAWSON THOMAS COURTHOUSEMEMBER ADMISSION: $10NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $20

APRIL 13COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW CLELOCATION: LAWSON THOMAS COURTHOUSETIME: 8:00 AM MEMBER ADMISSION: $59NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $69

APRIL 19YLS JUDICIAL RECEPTIONLOCATION: HYATT REGENCY MIAMITIME: 5:30 PMADMISSION: $50 IN ADVANCE $60 AT THE DOOR

APRIL 26INVESTITURE FOR JUDGE JOSEPH MANSFIELDLOCATION: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURTHOUSETIME: 12:00 NOON

APRIL 27INVESTITURE FOR JUDGE GORDON MURRAYLOCATION: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURTHOUSETIME: 12:00 NOON

APRIL 27JURY SELECTION LUNCHEON LOCATION: HYATT REGENCY MIAMITIME: 11:30 AM MEMBER ADMISSION: $49NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $69

MAY 10PROBATE & GUARDIANSHIP SEMINARTIME: 12:00 NOON LOCATION: LAWSON THOMAS COURTHOUSEMEMBER ADMISSION: $10NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $20

MAY 11COUNTY COMMISSION LUNCHEON LOCATION: HYATT REGENCYTIME: 11:30 AM MEMBER ADMISSION: $49NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $69

MAY 18PUT SOMETHING BACK VIEW FROM THE BENCHLOCATION: DADE COUNTY COURTHOUSETIME: 8:30AM

MAY 24PROBATE SUMMIT WITH PAUL COWANLOCATION: HYATT REGENCY MIAMITIME: 12:00 NOONMEMBER ADMISSION: $49NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $69

JUNE 14PROBATE & GUARDIANSHIP SEMINARTIME: 12:00 NOON LOCATION: LAWSON THOMAS COURTHOUSEMEMBER ADMISSION: $10NON-MEMBER ADMISSION: $20

JUNE 23102ND ANNUAL INSTALLATION GALALOCATION: FROST SCIENCE MUSEUMTIME: 7:00 PM